Gillibrand withdraws support for anti-BDS bill

[SATW]

LOL at people supporting this bill on here. You know this bill is against your first amendment right? Your forefathers would be ashamed.

LOL it's just easier for you to ignore my post and make stupid statements. I wrote a whole post on why I support this bill and why I, and two legal scholars, think it is constitutional. You don't have to agree, but there is a legitimate argument to be had on this subject.

You are not automatically right just because you think you are.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

LOL at people supporting this bill on here. You know this bill is against your first amendment right? Your forefathers would be ashamed.

LOL it's just easier for you to ignore my post and make stupid statements. I wrote a whole post on why I support this bill and why I, and two legal scholars, think it is constitutional. You don't have to agree, but there is a legitimate argument to be had on this subject.

You are not automatically right just because you think you are.

Also, the Intercept lied about what it actually does, as they do.

[SATW]

LOL at people supporting this bill on here. You know this bill is against your first amendment right? Your forefathers would be ashamed.

LOL it's just easier for you to ignore my post and make stupid statements. I wrote a whole post on why I support this bill and why I, and two legal scholars, think it is constitutional. You don't have to agree, but there is a legitimate argument to be had on this subject.

You are not automatically right just because you think you are.

Also, the Intercept lied about what it actually does, as they do.

Of course, The Intercept, The Alternet, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada are all the same. They lie, they distort and they misinform.

[Famous Mortimer]

This bill was as close to objectively bad as you could actually get. Outside of this forum, I didn't see anyone support it. Even hardcore goy hating Jews were against it because they realized it was terrible optics.

[SATW]

That's great, but I see no one has bothered to respond to the actual legal language of this bill, to the legal language of the 1977 Export Administration Act (and the cases that upheld that law, which does virtually the same thing as this bill). All of which I posted into this thread. All of the links I listed are from Law Professors, not jokes like The Intercept.

The opponents of this bill will talk optics, the supporters (should, if they are smart) talk about the legal language and legal precedent.


And that's cool that you don't know anyone "outside of this forum" who supports this bill, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the bill is constitutional. Just like it's equally irrelevant that virtually everyone I know outside of this forum supports this bill.

I can't speak for other Atlas supporters of this bill, but I will not be shamed by blanket statements that "no one else supports it" or that "its evil" or "unconstitutional." Virtually no one has provided a step-by-step explanation on how it is unconstitutional.

[SATW]

The JTA link posted by Sweet Meteor O' Death 2016 seems to be a better opposing piece to this bill. I do, however, disagree that this bill isn't needed.

How many resolutions, bills and laws are there that state things over and over again that may not present a current threat?

[Famous Mortimer]

Just because the bill might be constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.